Will the Subprime Mortgage Crisis Turn the Suburbs Into Slums?

Is today’s McMansion tomorrow’s tenement home? Wrtiting in The Atlantic Monthly, Christopher B. Leinberger argues that modern suburban neighborhoods may be in decline, and not just because of the subprime mortgage crisis. Rising gasoline prices, for example, may prompt Americans to return to the city. And when they do, what will become of the subdivisions where they used to live?

For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape and (until recently) leaving cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to believe this swing will continue. As it does, many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and ’70s—slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.

Leinberger writes that after World War II, American life shifted from being farm- and city-centric to emphasizing suburban living: malls, housing subdivisions, and business parks. Wide-spread use of technology such as electrification, telephone, refrigeration, automobiles, radio, and television helped to foster these communities.

This vision of the future came to prominence during the New York World’s Fair of 1939 and 1940. In a General Motors exhibit called “Highways and Horizons” (a.k.a. “The Futurama”), designers created a large-scale model (as big as a football field!) that imagined the world of 1960, “twenty years in the future”. Here’s a ten-minute video highlighting this vision:

American life progressed toward this “wonder-world” for fifty years. As families moved into larger homes on larger lots, inner cities deteriorated. Suburban life became the norm. But now attitudes seem to be shifting.

“People are being drawn to the convenience and culture of walkable urban neighborhoods across the country,” Leinberger writes. Though one-third of Americans still prefer suburban lifestyles, another third “want to live in mixed-use walkable urban areas”. The problem? Only 5-10% of available housing meets these requirements. Low supply and high demand makes these places expensive to live.

Last summer, I left suburbia behind for three weeks to take a trip to London and New York. This was the first time I’d ever seen a megalopolis up close. I was amazed. Everything a person could want within easy walking distance! A diverse and vibrant human landscape! Visiting these cities blew my mind. Now I, too, can see the value of urban living. It’s not a lifestyle that I can afford, but I do dream about it.

Very interesting. Since the construction industry is essentially reactive to consumer demand – rather than proactive or leading – homebuilders will have to be dragged into the future, whatever that may be.

All that is certain is that the (working-age) poor won’t get to choose where they live; they will wind up with whatever is unwanted by the rest of us.

While there has been a HUGE push of people moving back to the city in Chicago I think his argument is a bit extreme. It seems like they found the most extreme suburbs to use to make their argument. This skews the article to prove the point they intended on making.

Tim L wrote: Still, the story is interesting. But all that it shows is what happens with poor community planning.

Yes, I agree. Originally my post was much longer (and very rambly). One of the things I talked about was land-use planning. My friend Mike and I discussed this article at length yesterday, and I mentioned that one of the problems with the suburbs (at least in Oregon) is the intention zoning of residential/commercial/industrial areas. I understand the arguments in favor of this, but I think the value of mixed-use communities outweigh the advantages of strict zoning.

Here in Oregon there are several recent attempts to create mixed-use suburban areas, and they seem to have been successful. By creating ground-floor commercial businesses (such as restaurants and shops) in the downtowns of suburban areas, the upper floors can be used for condos. It takes time and costs money, but these areas can be made walkable. If they’re on a mass-transit line, so much the better.

Not everyone likes this sort of planning, of course. But, as the article mentions, there’s currently less of this type of thing available than there is demand for it.

Minimum Wage wrote: All that is certain is that the (working-age) poor won’t get to choose where they live; they will wind up with whatever is unwanted by the rest of us.

This is interesting, too. I’ve never really considered the socio-economic implications of housing. I’ve only recently become acquainted with the notion of gentrification. I can see that it has pros and cons. Urban renewal is a good thing. But is it really good if it displaces entire communities? Complex stuff.

But yeah, I agree — the article seems to overstate things for effect. It’s reactionary. But it’s also fascinating.

I love urban living. I can’t imagine being somewhere really zoned at all, you don’t get that even in the suburbs very much over here as everything is more densely packed. In London, most of the inner city has been gentrified for a while – almost all true Cockneys now live in Essex for example – it’s just another one of those things.

This article is sure doing the rounds! The most interesting bit for me was:

“families may find that some of the suburbs’ other big advantages—better schools and safer communities—have eroded. Schooling and safety are likely to improve in urban areas, as those areas continue to gentrify; they may worsen in many suburbs if the tax base—often highly dependent on house values and new development—deteriorates. Many of the fringe counties in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, for instance, are projecting big budget deficits in 2008. Only Washington itself is expecting a large surplus. Fifteen years ago, this budget situation was reversed.”

I thought it was a well-balanced article; his points about White Plains, which I know well, were spot-on. Like plonkee I’m a lifelong urbanite, although have mainly lived in well-gentrified cities, so am always pleased to read that my environs are on the upswing.

An interesting topic. Seems that extreme examples were used to make the point.

I think that that the future will not be quite so simplistic. The advent of the first practical electric car may change things significantly. Americans are in love with individual transportation, independence, and mobility. The first “Automobile Manufacturer” who makes the shift to being an “individual transportation provider” will probably be highly successful. Watching “Who Killed the Electric Car” opened my eyes to all the industries and levels of Government that have a vested interest in gasoline or diesel based transportation. Disruption is coming.

Regarding suburban development, my wife and I live in an Arts & Crafts bungalow (circa 1920) in a small town in central Pennsylvania. We can walk to the library, post office, drug store, bank, schools, and restaurants. It is interesting to me to see what land use in the late 1800s through the first half of the 19th century resulted in in our neighborhood. Relatively small narrow lots (60 x 200 feet) with alleys behind for garages. Very efficient land use. Close knit community of single family and duplex residences dating from about 1860 to 1940. Lots of diversity in architecture, but two very consistent features: large front porches and wide sidewalks. Very conducive to building friendships with neighbors. My wife and I chuckle when we read articles on the “new wave” of planned residential developments. Seems that our town has been doing it for nearly 150 years.

Keep up the great work J.D. and congratulations on achieving debt freedom.

I grew up on a farm and had always sworn I would go back to a farm or farm-like environment as soon as I could afford it as an adult. But I changed my mind after (1) five years living in an urban neighborhood that’s residential, almost totally walkable, but not quite; (2) living for a few months last year in Dublin, which is totally mixed-use and walkable, if not always totally mass-transit-friendly; and (3) paring down to one car for our household back here, leaving me to rely on my bike and feet.
I used to love driving, and frankly was surprised to realize that I don’t miss it one bit. I thought I’d miss the convenience of big grocery or department-store trips, but I didn’t. Turns out, the ability to grab a cup of coffee on the walk to work, to pop in to a shop and look around for a new sweater on the walk to or from lunch, and to stop in to the grocery on the way home for dinner items is way more satisfying to me than doing any of those things on special trips requiring a car and parking lots. Those obligations of my weekly schedule evaporated, and I was glad to see them go.
Leinberger may be overstating the case, but I for one cannot wait for a shift back to higher-density living.
As for gentrification, most of the time that’s a euphemism for “moving poor people around.” There are ways to gentrify sensitively, by keeping the door to neighborhood improvement open to lower-income residents, but of course they cost more to local and state government, and almost always get shuffled to the bottom of the pile in favor of more purely market-driven plans. Like you said, complex stuff.

Leinberger’s article fails to account for long held tenets of urban and regional economies. The shift back to suburb to urban has been known in this community since the late 80s

Areas rise and fall over time, based on development and population trends. Folks settle in cities for reasons, but their settling in these cities changes things: hence, the cyclical nature of communities.

What created the suburbs now is creating the urban areas. As baby-boomers retire and die, giving way to the next generation with their smaller family size, homes will once again be smaller.

That this spells disaster, or is even related to the subprime fiasco, is incorrect. The process of urban to suburban back to urban was occuring since downtowns began reviving in the 80s. The current mortgage crisis has nothing to do with this occruance.

I’m no economist or anything, but my first impression of it is that the same facts/forces that cause us suburbanites to want to move to the city would also prohibit the lower-income families from moving their way out to the suburbs.

I hate suburbia, commuting, and super-sized wooden-framed vinyl-sided shacks as much as anybody, but if the price of energy makes them unaffordable, wouldn’t only the rich live there? I don’t see how they can turn into slums, because poor people need to get to work also. Probably the price of land in suburbia would plummet, as the total cost of living out there rises. I can see rich people buying a whole cul-de-sac, tearing down the McMansions, and building a palace on it. There are lots of very rich people in this country who can afford anything.

Meanwhile, any efforts by developers to make urban living more affordable would go a long way. Interesting note from the article: “By 2025, the U.S. will contain about as many single-person households as families with children.” If true, that should have a huge impact on how housing is developed. A one-person household does not need 3,000 square feet to live in but in a lot of places there is not much choice.

We’re seeing this in Portland now: it’s called the doughnut. The well-heeled are moving into close-in Portland, near downtown. This is causing displacement of the less-well-off to the ‘burbs like Gresham and Hillsboro.

Now, while I do agree that suburbia as we know it is doomed – due to Peak oil – I’m not sure what’s going on in Portland is actually the correct response. Why? Because there’s only so much “close-in” housing available. Also, it turns out that many of the people here in Portland who are moving “close in” don’t actually work “close in”. For example, I know some people who work at Intel (in the ‘burbs) but live in the Pearl district (downtown) – what are we to make of this? These are people who are actually driving further to work than they used to (because they don’t always take the light rail). Why not make the ‘burbs more walkable? Maybe change zoning laws to allow mixing of houses with businesses?

I LOVED the video! It’s so interesting to see what 1940 America thought 1960 America might look like. The little glass houses for fruit trees was really funny. I was really amazed that they predicted sensors on cars to prevent them from getting too close to the car in front of them. That’s something that’s just starting to show up on cars now (I think just concept cars??). Very cool video, JD!

Interesting article. I live in a southern city almost exactly the same size as Charlotte and with many of the same problems (we’re #1 with larceny rates in the country, whereas Charlotte is #2). Where I am seeing the problems of forclosure and slumliness are in suburbs that weren’t all that nice to begin with. The swanky suburban towns and neighborhoods are still doing quite well, as well as the well-established city neighborhoods. But the working class and poorer ones aren’t doing so well.

There are several reasons for this. One is that obviously people with less income are more likely to take on subprime loans and default and they aren’t living in the high class burbs. But the other reason is commercial real estate. How often do you see a Wal Mart or other big box retailer close a 5 year old store to open up another one in greener pasture only a few miles away? It happens all the time, even in a thriving economy. Then that community is left with a hulking shell of a building and the associated problems of unkeptness that go with it. This contributes to a lot of problems with declining values. But again, most of this can be chalked up to bad planning.

There is a pretty simple solution to skyrocketing gasoline prices: Make your elected representatives build a public transportation system. In the end it is win/win for everyone (faster commute, less traffic, good for nature, employment in a coming recession). Besides, riding the bus is more social than spending the time in isolation driving to work and sipping your coffee

Interesting post, JD! With respect to the video, the reason that the 1939 visionaries failed, of course, was all that horrible organ music. How could anyone think with all that obnoxious droning going on, never mind plan the ideal future? If only they’d had some peace and quiet, their vision might have been fulfilled.

But the more modern idea of the poor taking the bus to their minimum-wage jobs while the rich live in downtown condos is quite interesting. You may be right, but I’d want better soundproofing before moving into one of those ritzy new condos, even if I could afford it.

I liked the idea of curbs on the highway lanes to keep people in their safe lane as opposed to the lane changing mayhem that’s developed.

I purposely stay in the city (well, in the outskirts but I’m not quite in suburbia) so I can avoid the monster highways this video waxed so poetic about. I have a car, but also use public transportation quite a lot. I just hate driving!

I thought it was pretty funny though that they thought the modern highways would mean an increase in community and oneness with nature. Seems to have had the opposite effect.

I agree with the comments that the rich people will choose where they want to be, and the poor will end up wherever they can. I don’t like the exurbs, because they ruin greenspace, require people to drive everywhere, and require long commutes. I don’t think they’ll become slums, but many of the “entry level” ones will be in trouble, because a lot of the new construction out there isn’t good construction, and that will start to show when the owners want to sell.

You know, when we bought our current house in 2005 (which we thought might be near the top of the market), many of my reasons for buying here are included here: walkability, proximity to downtown (we’re in a first-ring suburb), proximity to public transit, modest house sizes (by modern standards), quality of construction (1928 brick bungalow), and increasing gas prices. We briefly tried out living in the exurbs by squatting with a downsizing aunt & uncle, and I hated being so far from the center of things — I resented the time on the road. Whenever gas prices go up here, and I hear lots of whining from SUV drivers about the costs of their 50-mile commute, well . . . you make your choices.

I don’t see the suburbs going away any time soon. I do think there has to be a radical change coming down the line. Eventually the world will be so populated that we will either need to come up with extremely fast and efficient ways to produce food, or acquire more farm land to produce food. If it is the latter, that would mean people moving in closer together in high rise buildings since they have a smaller footprint.

I dunno, didn’t really make a lot of sense to me. In an age where technology is rapidly improving fuel efficiency and the ability to telecommute, I didn’t really see any reason why there’d be enough demand for city housing that the suburbs would turn into some kind of crime-riddled dystopia.

The forces mentioned are all already mostly at work — isn’t most of this already priced into the market? If people wish to AND can afford to live in, say, Boston proper, aren’t they doing so already?

we just moved *out* of downtown, and find the lack of break-ins in the neighborhood, police sirens, and gunshots to be quite refreshing. we were not within walking distance of anything, at least not safely.

funny enough, though, they are building rows of nice new townhomes across the street from the dilapidated old housing, condos out of the old factories for big bucks, smack in the middle of the crime district.

at our new apartment, we are less than a mile away from all the shopping we could ever need. both our commutes are far less stressful (though mine is longer), and the peace of mind and improved concentration that comes with peace and quiet is priceless.

maybe that’s just the city where we live, but i have my doubts. i see very little advantage to living downtown.

I can’t stand being around so many people and so much noise for more than a day or two at a time. I’ll stay in my nice quiet suburban home by the lake where I can watch wildlife and let my kids play carefree. I thank my lucky stars that telecommuting is possible in my industry.

Anyplace can become a slum as people put less value on living in certain neighborhoods, deflating housing values, and turning these houses into rental units.

All that subprime lending did was to put renters into houses they can’t afford to keep. Since they put nothing down, they are just “renting” these houses. These “owners” are probably one disaster or paycheck away from losing the house.

As for urban living, you need to get out more. Go to Brooklyn, where you have a myriad of shopping choices just blocks away in any direction. At the same time, you need to get used to all those people walking around all the time.

@Brent, I think we might live in the same town… or relatively close to each other.

I have to say that the avant-garde may already be trying to reclaim the cities, but to me, small town living is where its at. I have everything I need in the town I live in, and even have managed to kidnap my wife from a nearby big city and converted her to small town living.

As someone else has probably pointed out, the fuel problem will be at least somewhat mitigated by conservation and technology. Our small town is mostly self-sufficient anyway.

I think as a country, we have been living way beyond our means for the better part of a century. We are going to have to make the shift back to living below our means. To some, that will mean moving to the city, for others, that will mean simply a return to community.

Whatever happens, its better to make that shift gradually and sooner rather than drastically and later.

I doubt you’ll see this trend in areas where “downtown living” has remained steadily popular – (Boston and New York City immediately come to mind). In this type of area, any type of real-estate becomes exorbitantly expensive as you get close to the city, so both businesses and middle-to-lower-class residential is pushed further and further out.

I grew up in a small town where we could walk to the grocery store, drug store, and the library, and it was pleasant enough. But when I got older I ended up living in some real cities (Paris, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco) and there is simply no comparison. In my current neighborhood it is an easy walk to two libraries, two world-class parks, several book stores and drug stores, four independent grocery stores, more bakeries and restaurants than I can count, and hundreds of little interesting shops. Housing obviously costs more, but the difference in other expenses (buying groceries in Chinatown is unbelievably cheap, proximity to work and good public transit means we don’t need even one car), even before you consider quality of life, makes up for a lot of that difference. We spend more time outside than most of our friends who live in the suburbs, much of it showing our son real nature like the protected wetlands in our local parks, rather than on endless acres of lawn that might as well be asphalt for all of their contribution to local ecology. When our suburban friends finally steel themselves to visit the city and find parking (which is admittedly no joke) they can’t stop talking about how safe they feel and how easy it is to walk to everything.

Despite all this, I am skeptical that many people will really move out of the suburbs. The housing cost is just too daunting when you haven’t internalized the other savings, and people get used to the time they spend commuting and cleaning their big houses. It’s hard to imagine a different way of living until you’re doing it.

I moved out of the suburbs and into the city (Washington DC) a few years ago, as soon as I could afford it. And, I love it! I live within blocks of my office, the Smithsonian, the farmer’s market, Macy’s and tons of other places. I find myself not using my car for months at a time, and I don’t miss it one bit.

On the other hand, I recently had a child, and I have absolutely no idea how we can avoid moving to the suburbs; the schools are just not safe in the city.

If everyone moves back to the downtown cores, where will their kids play? Obviously, the street or unsupervised at the park won’t work. Surely some of the hipsters and young couples will want kids at some point.

As noted, we urban types take our kids to parks and play with them. Our son also enjoys heading out with us early in the morning and jumping in and out of the recessed doorways of shops before they open: “I play peekaboo!” Parents in our neighborhood with teenagers enjoy more sophisticated activities, although a lot of the local teens spend solo time studying at the library; I look forward to that too.

I don’t get the way people wax rhapsodic about sending their kids out to play alone in the yard. I can attest from my own childhood that that is boring. Also, why would you have kids if you didn’t want to spend time with them?

everyone is different, every kid is different (i lived in the boonies and loved playing outdoors, alone), every city is different and so is every neighborhood. this makes generalizing about the problems associated with urban vs suburban living very silly. it all depends on where you live, right down to the lot. i would probably kill myself if i had to live in a busy urban center, i hate noise and large crowds. at the same time, i can see the appeal of walking to hip stores, museums and parks. but that’s assuming i’d be able to afford to live in such an area.

i just want a better selection of affordable housing… anywhere. urban center or suburban farm land, i don’t care, i just want to be able to have a choice in the first place.

There is a pretty simple solution to skyrocketing gasoline prices: Make your elected representatives build a public transportation system. In the end it is win/win for everyone (faster commute, less traffic, good for nature, employment in a coming recession). Besides, riding the bus is more social than spending the time in isolation driving to work and sipping your coffee

No thanks! Where I live the planners and politicians keep cramming light rail down our throats (even when we vote it down) and all this transit system has done is provide a mobile platform for gangbangers.

I grew up riding the NYC subways and it was nothing like the pool of human flotsam and jetsam we have here.

I don’t think such a blanket statement applies to everywhere. Real Estate is highly local. I’d love to live in my downtown (Columbus, OH) but the prices for condos are higher than larger houses in the burbs. Downtown isn’t vibrant, it’s dead after 5 PM. Public transport is abysmal with the only choice being the bus. And it only takes 15-20 minutes to drive anywhere. I just don’t see the draw and the prices keep me from even contemplating the benefits. So unless urban real estate prices come down around here, I don’t see this happening.

My son thinks this will happen here in the Phoenix area, where indeed the highest foreclosure rates are in the burbs. I don’t agree.

First, the middle-class infrastructure has moved to the suburbs. To get to decent shopping from where I live, you have to drive at least eight to ten miles…OUT from the central city! But we do have a WalMart right down the road.

Second, the central area of the city has deteriorated to the extent that it’s unlikely ever to recover. Most of the housing–which itself was suburban 50 years ago–was cheaply built junk to begin with, and now it’s old, run-down cheaply built junk.

Third, the environment in the central part of the city is not very pleasant. A strip of upscale housing runs up the old main drag from mid-town to up-town, but it is flanked on both sides by blight. Less than a quarter-mile from me in two directions are gang-infested slums. The two surviving strip malls within walking distance are dangerous, dirty, and overpriced. One of my neighbors was shot by a purse-snatcher in one of them; at the other, I was actually CHASED around the parking lot by a panhandler. Consequently, I get in my car and drive five miles to get to the nearest reasonably safe and clean grocery store. There’s no question of “walkability.” That is a laughable concept here.

In my neighborhood, you can set your clock by the cop helicopter fly-overs: we get buzzed at 11:00 p.m. sharp every Friday and Saturday night. And we enjoy plenty of other buzzings, too, at all hours of the day and night. The sounds of gunfire, gang-bangers doing wheelies in stolen cars, unmuffled Harleys, and sirens are a constant part of the background noise, keeping the decibel levels high. On New Year’s and the Fourth of July, you stay inside and hope the bullets arcing down from guns shot into the air don’t come through your roof and ceiling.

You live here at your peril. Police protection is nonexistent. The last time I called 911 when a prowler was at a bedroom window, the dispatcher said (direct quote!), “Well, if he tries to get in, call us back.” No joke! An hour later a cop showed up. Guess he could have taken me to the ER after the rape, eh? This episode occurred two nights before the guys across the street were pistol-whipped and chased down the street by a gang of four home invaders.

Third, Minimum Wage is dead right when he says public transport in LA-type cities (as opposed to San Francisco or London-like cities) amounts to a rolling platform for gangs of thugs. The bus system here is unusable — to make the 25-minute one-way drive from my house to my job takes two hours and ten minutes on a bus! I can tell you from experience, it ain’t a fun trip. The city is gagging light-rail down our throats, trashing neighborhoods and closing businesses for mile after mile along the construction route, and the result will be a trolley car that makes the same milk run on exactly the same schedule as that bus. And trust me: it will carry the same clientele.

People around here will pay through the schnozz to avoid this kind of lifestyle. When gasoline reaches about $5 a gallon, consumers will demand electric cars and they will continue to drive to work from the suburbs. Only wealthy professionals can afford to buy in the upscale parts of the central city and send their kids to private school. There’s not a middle-class parent in this country who will sell a perfectly fine home in a quiet neighborhood to move to a slum and put the kids in a dangerous inner-city public school.

While the central Phoenix area does have some amenities — the town has finally developed a cultural life, mostly situated downtown and in Scottsdale — for most people getting to a play, a concert, or a baseball game quickly is not worth the trade-off.

Why do I stay here? Because I can’t sell my house in this market and because I’m not interested in driving upwards of 90 minutes one-way to get to work. As soon as I retire and real estate turns around, I’m outa here!

(At least where I live) It is more expensive to live “in the city” in many ways. I live in a house. it is very modest but I have 3BR 2BA, garage, basement, yard. For the cost of this house I would probably afford a 1BR apt in some slum in the city. No thanks. I don’t want to live in a slum or an overpriced dorm called a condo.

Speaking of zoning ( personally I am opposed to ALL zoning/planning. I believe in pretty strict property rights.), many cities ( in their effort to maintain their “urban lifestyle” I suppose. Though suburbs and other places do some of the same stuff) use zoning to ban businesses that cater to poor and middle class people and save all people money. In many cities there are no discount stores, supermarkets,etc. IMHO, this also probably contributes to the obesity epidemic as affordable quality food is zoned out of many cities. Of course, many of the health nannies are the same people who control the “planning” ( or rather the process of stifling economic competition, resulted in overpriced crap).

Fuel prices, comparatively, are a very MINOR cost in the grand scheme of things. Especially considering all the other areas where you usually save money in non-urban areas- housing, food, lifestyle benefits. No one forces people to buy SUVs or houses they can’t afford. people choose to. gas prices have been rising forever- where is the tipping point? People have mostly accepted it. Personally ( though I admit I am on the low end of driving) if gas prices went up a whole dollar a gallon it would cost me about $200 a year. Whoopty Do. I probably save about $10,000 a year on food and rent not living in the city.

The one thing that makes no sense to me- if people can’t afford their house payments, how the heck can they afford housing in the expensive city. I guess they all live in “exclusive” overpriced suburban communities.

Some of it is just personal preference. A lot of people dont like noise, small spaces, crowds, and so on. Some people live for that stuff. But I think dollar for dollar you get best value in a modest middle class area outside of the city.

it’s interesting – here in sweden it’s mostly all the opposite – the suburbs (built in the 1960 & 70′s) are the slums any one who can avoids. the inner city are the most popular and prices on condos are high, especially in the three larger cities in sweden… (but you can rent a fresh and quite cheap “public housing” condo in the inner city, too – IF you can stand to wait 15-20 years for one to become available…) I myself prefer to live in a small rented condo 3-4 miles outside the city near the woods. Lot’s of fresh air and close enough to bike to everything around – choosing the right neighbourhood is everything!

Wonder what will really be the outcome. Another issue is that all of these investors that bought during the boom to flip and can’t now are dumping the houses or renting out. They don’t care who they rent to as long as they get the money. Right now a house behind me is rented to “a few” people. Result is cars piled in the back yard, side yard and front yard. Heck, they even took the garage door off and are working on cars day and night. I wouldn’t want to live across the street.

Advertiser Disclosure:
Many of the savings offers appearing on this site are from advertisers from which this website receives compensation for being listed here.
This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site (including, for example, the order in which they appear). These offers do not represent all deposit accounts available.
Editorial Disclosure: This content is not provided or commissioned by the bank advertiser.
Opinions expressed here are author’s alone, not those of the bank advertiser, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by the bank advertiser. This site may be compensated through the bank advertiser Affiliate Program.
UGC Disclosure: These responses are not provided or commissioned by the bank advertiser.
Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by the bank advertiser. It is not the bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Disclaimer: Rates / APY terms above are current as of the date indicated. These quotes are
from banks, credit unions and thrifts, some of which have paid for a link to
their website. Bank, thrift and credit union deposits are insured by the FDIC
or NCUA. Contact the bank for the terms and conditions that may apply to you.
Rates are subject to change without notice and may not be the same at all
branches.

Disclaimer:All information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. GetRichSlowly.org makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, suitability or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information or any damages arising from its display or use.